Alessio v. Howard

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Alessio v. Howard

273 A.2d 324, 108 R.I. 909, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1355

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 2, 1971

DocketM. P. No. 1201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.2d 324 (Alessio v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alessio v. Howard, 273 A.2d 324, 108 R.I. 909, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1355 (R.I. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition for habeas corpus wherein the petitioner seeks his release from the Adult Correctional Institutions where he is being held after a justice of the Superior Court had found that the petitioner had violated the terms of a deferred sentence agreement. The respondent concedes that the petitioner was not afforded the type of violation hearing described in and required by O’Neill v. Sharkey, 107 R. I. 524, 268 A.2d 720.

John F. Lallo, John P. Toscano, Jr., for petitioner. Richard J. Israel, Attorney General, Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Attorney General, for respondent. 1

The petitioner also alleges that in 1965 his waiving of a grand jury indictment and his subsequent nolo plea were not intelligently and willingly made. These issues can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.

The petition for habeas corpus is granted and the cause is . remanded to the Superior Court where the court after considering the evidence adduced shall make appropriate findings and .decide the issues raised herein. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is a petition for habeas corpus wherein the petitioner seeks his release from the Adult Correctional Institutions where he is being held after a justice of the Superior Court had found that the petitioner had violated the terms of a deferred sentence agreement. The respondent concedes that the petitioner was not afforded the type of violation hearing described in and required by O’Neill v. Sharkey, 107 R. I. 524, 268 A.2d 720.

John F. Lallo, John P. Toscano, Jr., for petitioner. Richard J. Israel, Attorney General, Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Attorney General, for respondent. 1

The petitioner also alleges that in 1965 his waiving of a grand jury indictment and his subsequent nolo plea were not intelligently and willingly made. These issues can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.

The petition for habeas corpus is granted and the cause is . remanded to the Superior Court where the court after considering the evidence adduced shall make appropriate findings and .decide the issues raised herein. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.2d 324, 108 R.I. 909, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alessio-v-howard-ri-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack